Los estados rehenes

No se pierdan este muy interesante artículo sobre los estados rehenes en Cato. La situación aplica perfectamente a Hezbollah usando al Líbano como escudo humano, o rehén, para llevar a cabo sus actividades terroristas.

El autor se pregunta cuales son las opciones que tiene la población de un país o de una región que es usada como rehén por su gobierno o un grupo terrorista y cuál es el grado de responsabilidad:

The Era of Hostage States
by Arnold Kling

"The [Israeli Military] has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out."
-- YNET news, July 2006

In 21st-century warfare, civilians often are used as human shields. If Hezbollah were to follow the Geneva Convention, and differentiate its military operators from civilians, their fighters would be slaughtered. So they do not follow the Geneva Convention. What rules should Israel and other countries apply?

It is safe to assume that most Lebanese do not like what is happening to their country now. But up until recently, the Lebanese government seemed to have no objection to Hezbollah's weapons arsenal and control over territory. Based on the actions of their elected government, one might infer that the Lebanese people were quite willing to tolerate a heavily armed, radical independent militia in their country. Perhaps the Lebanese would say that they only did so out of fear. To the extent that is the case, then perhaps the Lebanese have been hostages of Hezbollah for a long time.

How much sympathy ought to be shown to the Palestinian people? In principle, they could have demanded a government that clamps down on militias that attack Israel, but they did the opposite. Is Hamas now holding the Palestinian people hostage? Or is it a linguistic fallacy to call a democratically-elected government "hostage takers?"

Should the civilian population in Iran be regarded as hostages of the radical mullahs? If so, what implications does this have for how the United States or other countries ought to deal with Iran's nuclear threat?

The Obligation to Resist
The first rule that I propose for the era of hostage-taking is the obligation to resist. Anyone who lives under the control of hostage-takers has an obligation to attempt to escape or to resist.
Ultimately, if almost everyone resists being held hostage, then hostage-taking will fail. If hardly anyone resists being held hostage, then hostage-taking will be a way of life.

Under this doctrine, Palestinian civilians living in Gaza could declare a village a "militant-free zone." If terrorists try to violate that zone, the civilians could either try to protect themselves or ask for outside protection. Similarly, people living in Lebanon could declare certain areas to be terrorist-free zones.

I do not expect the idea of civilians declaring areas "militant-free zones" to take off any time soon. However, I do believe that civilians in contemporary hostage situations need to be more pro-active. Passive acceptance of hostage status is not the same as innocence. It is closer to being an accessory.

Separating Hostage-Takers from Weapons
Those of us who do not wish to become hostages might wish to advocate for a policy of separating hostage-takers from weapons. If any organization or government shows an inclination to engage in hostage-taking, hostage-resisting armed forces are justified in taking action against that organization or government.

For example, North Korea clearly has a government that is holding its own people hostage. Many North Koreans would escape if they were given a chance to do so. If the North Korean government were content to hold its own people hostage and not threaten anyone else, then perhaps it would be in our interest just to let them get away with it. However, the North Koreans seem eager to threaten others. Moreover, they probably would be willing to sell weapons to people who threaten others. There appears to be a strong case for applying the Bush doctrine of pre-emption to North Korea.

The other "axis of evil" member, the government of Iran, also is a strong candidate for pre-emption. If they want to install a theocracy and advocate for the destruction of other countries, that is fine. If they want nuclear weapons, that is fine. But they cannot do both. They have to choose: either have a nuclear program, or conduct yourself in a non-threatening way.

If I lived in Israel, I do not think I would want to allow any Palestinians to have weapons. Ordinarily, I do not like to see people disarmed, because when you are disarmed you can be robbed or killed without being able to fight back. But the situation in Gaza and the West Bank appears to be so bad that the Palestinians might have a better chance at independence and autonomy if somehow all weapons could be taken out of their territories. Then a completely independent, outside police force might be used to keep order.

Who Is the Policeman?
Who will act as the world's policeman, undertaking the effort to separate weapons from hostage-takers? Not the "international community." There is no such thing. There are only various individuals, organizations, and governments. The "international community" is a linguistic device contrived to enable people to avoid accountability. Rather than have an individual government leader step up and take responsibility for a problem, everyone can hide behind the fiction of the "international community."

A real national government, or perhaps a small coalition of governments, can undertake a police action. Any such government or coalition is potentially dangerous. The world's policeman could become the world's tyrant.

The United States government should not act as policeman unless its interests are clearly involved. Our interests are not sufficiently affected by the situation in Gaza or in Lebanon.

What about the idea of the U.S. government acting as a policeman in dealing with dangerous rogue regimes, such as North Korea or Iran? That is a troubling prospect -- until one considers the alternatives. Waiting until the government of North Korea or Iran engages in hostage-taking that more directly threatens the United States is one of the less-attractive options.